You know what's really sad? Even after going over Bure's career with a fine-toothed comb in the other thread, I spent 30 confused seconds trying to remember something meaningful that Sundin did in Vancouver

I buy the rest of what you said. We get caught up in the "who has a better profile" game when it comes to HOF inductions, and it's harder to avoid with every borderline induction. I'd much rather have a true Hall of Fame, which celebrates the culture of the game rather than stats and awards.

The list of 4-year goal leaders in the Stamkos thread also got me thinking about how empty the Dead Puck Era seems in retrospect. Nothing against guys like Naslund and Tkachuk, but it just doesn't seem like they were ever really the kind of superstars that would be at the top of an era. I suspect that in a few years we'll run into a relatively dead phase of HOF inductions after we exhaust the obvious candidates from that 1998-2004 range -- maybe that would be a good time to think about Fleury.

Turth be told the layoff really hurt Sundin, who probably was hoping to sign with an East coast team but the Cap prevented .

It was a sad end to a great career.

Good points on Fluery and the culture of hockey and why he might make it in.

Fluery was a very exciting and inspirational player and was looked on as a bad apple late in his career.

We all know now why that was and it might influence and be the tipping point to his making the Hall.

He has a pretty interesting case and if the HHOF was like baseball and the voting was transparent it would be interesting to see how he would do.

not counting his rookie year with the flames and his few months with the avalanche, he never made it out of the first round. not once. and yet when you ask people in and around the league about fleury, one of the first things out of their mouths will be, "big game player." both gretzky and quinn called fleury the best big game player in the league when talking about picking him for the 2002 canadian olympic team, and messier has said similar things about him. these are the guys who beat fleury in the first round every year.

he scored that game winner in ot in the 96 world cup semi final vs sweden, that's probably where some of the "big game player" comes from as for international play

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil

1994 - 10 points in 7 games. Scored 2 goals in Game 7.

he also set up robert reichel for a half empty net on a three on one in the first ot period, thankfully for a canucks fan reichel isn't that clutch

seems reasonable to me. i wouldn't induct fleury over, say, gilmour, mark howe, belfour, bure, sakic obviously, shanahan, sundin, or oates, and he'd be behind lindros, makarov, chelios obviously, niedermayer, shanahan, modano, recchi, lidstrom obviously, and maybe a few others in the next bunch of years. but definitely there's no question in my mind you go with fleury before you even bring up the names naslund, roenick, tkachuk, leclair, turgeon, etc.

i'd like to see a lull year somewhere five to ten years down the road where we are debating fleury with elias and other borderline guys.

I totally agree. Theo was a warrior. He never went super deep except as a rookie in the playoffs, but in the playoffs he played like Doug Gilmour. He was far more then just a pint sized guy everyone liked. He was freaking good. He was a top-echlon pest that wore you down (then at the end he lost his marbles and hurt his teams like Avery but worse in Chicago and NY). But at his best he scored over a ppg and also was among the best pesty, annoying, throw you off your game players.

Compared to Naslund - much better, much longer peak. Roenick - Same thing. Tkachuk - Huge guy, physical but I bet Theo scared opposing teams more for a decade then Tkachuk ever did. Leclair - Great peak of about 5 seasons, but aside injuries and not HHOF caliber play. Turgeon - better point producer, long peak. But I doubt a GM or Coach in hockey would take him over a prime Theo in a 7 game playoff series. Also he was a FACE of a franchise. He bounced around in his 30's but you think Flames. The others, it is hard to pick a team to associate them with. Well except Naslund and Leclair, but their peaks were too short.

Fleury is borderline, but I think he should and will get in eventually. To me he is better then recent borderline candidates that waited like Anderson and Dino.

Turth be told the layoff really hurt Sundin, who probably was hoping to sign with an East coast team but the Cap prevented .

It was a sad end to a great career.

Good points on Fluery and the culture of hockey and why he might make it in.

Fluery was a very exciting and inspirational player and was looked on as a bad apple late in his career.

We all know now why that was and it might influence and be the tipping point to his making the Hall.

He has a pretty interesting case and if the HHOF was like baseball and the voting was transparent it would be interesting to see how he would do.

Sadly the NHL process is secretive and all we can do is speculate.

It helps Fleury to have an actual reason for his crazy on ice and off ice activities that really started to mess up his life and game in his 30's. Getting abused by a prominent hockey coach in junior, and having that become public knowledge and owning it from Theo's perspective goes a long way toward people understanding his addictions and frankly insane behaviour late in his career. Addicts are sick people, and for the general public and ALL the HHOF voters to see the WHY of Theo's demons... and having the cause mainly be him being a victim of HOCKEY and the HOCKEY establishment and the Western Hockey league. Sympathy is easy. Compassion is easy. Forgiveness is easy. Hockey is a small world. Hockey, and the HHOF voters won't forget where his demons came from and that everyone in hockey has some small part of the responsibility for what happened to Fleury and others at the hands of James.

A lot of it was just flat out bad luck....3 overtime game 7 losses. That's unlucky...and none of it was his fault as Fleury performed superbly in the playoffs (14 points in 7 playoff games in 1995!)

still, he falls just short of the hall, doesn't have the numbers because he derailed his own career with drug problems. He does have the cup but wasn't much of a factor on the 89 flames. Too young

In all honesty, Fleury had 11 points in the 1989 playoffs. Nieuwendyk, a guy who contstantly gets patted on the back for his playoff heroics (for some reason) had 14 points. Was there that much difference between the two?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkingthroughforest

I'm sure Fleury's eligibility just opened this year. He didn't have a chance against anyone except Bure.

In all honesty, Fleury had 11 points in the 1989 playoffs. Nieuwendyk, a guy who contstantly gets patted on the back for his playoff heroics (for some reason) had 14 points. Was there that much difference between the two?

obviously i'm a huge fleury supporter, and i'm probably as hard on nieuwendyk as anyone. i'd never have inducted nieuwendyk in a million years.

but in '89, yes there was that much of a difference between the two. nieuwendyk was an indispensable piece of arguably the greatest powerplay i've ever seen. a big part of what made that powerplay work so well was because nieuwendyk was phenomenal in front of the net. screening goalies, tipping shots and grabbing rebounds. and that powerplay was a huge reason why calgary steamrolled the league in the years around '89 and why they won the cup.

fleury was a very good rookie for the '89 flames, maybe even an exceptional one. he played on the lower lines, provided energy and a spark on a veteran team, did some second PP unit duty, and chipped in with some points when needed (not unlike, say, brad marchand with the bruins). but the points totals don't indicate the difference between those two guys that year, even if nieuwendyk's importance was mainly as a specialist.

Unfortunately for Fluery, he didn't play the bulk of his career in TO, or else he would have been a 1st ballot guy.

honestly, i think if fleury had played more of his career in big cities like chicago, new york, or toronto, places where it would be much easier to disappear completely whenever he wanted, he'd probably be dead.

Basically Pierre Turgeon like career but with lower regular season and playoff stats.

Nowhere near the career of some guys who had to wait.

I don't know anyone who would have taken Turgeon over Sundin

Quote:

Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov

obviously i'm a huge fleury supporter, and i'm probably as hard on nieuwendyk as anyone. i'd never have inducted nieuwendyk in a million years.

but in '89, yes there was that much of a difference between the two. nieuwendyk was an indispensable piece of arguably the greatest powerplay i've ever seen. a big part of what made that powerplay work so well was because nieuwendyk was phenomenal in front of the net. screening goalies, tipping shots and grabbing rebounds. and that powerplay was a huge reason why calgary steamrolled the league in the years around '89 and why they won the cup.

fleury was a very good rookie for the '89 flames, maybe even an exceptional one. he played on the lower lines, provided energy and a spark on a veteran team, did some second PP unit duty, and chipped in with some points when needed (not unlike, say, brad marchand with the bruins). but the points totals don't indicate the difference between those two guys that year, even if nieuwendyk's importance was mainly as a specialist.

Basically Pierre Turgeon like career but with lower regular season and playoff stats.

Nowhere near the career of some guys who had to wait.

His adjusted totals are higher, if you factor in the lockout he's over 100 goals and 100 points above Turgeon. Turgeon has more playoff points, but similar PPG. Sundin has extras like being good in international play, captain and career records of O6 Canadian team, and considered by most a better two-way player than Turgeon.

Once Shanahan, Modano, and Recchi are inducted, then Turgeon will have the most adjusted points of any non-HOFer. If other players like Alfredsson get inducted, then that's really going to be a slight of Turgeon and others.

Perhaps HOF draws the line at players like Turgeon and Tkachuk, who didn't often get past the first round of the playoffs and didn't do much when they did. They may also exclude high peak players like Kariya, Naslund and LeClair on a similar basis (although Turgeon and Tkachuk has good peaks as well).

Fleury seems more in a category like Mogilny and Kovalev. Very good careers that probably could have been even better but for injuries and other issues. They have good (but not great) career totals, won a Cup, and had very good peaks. Fleury has a significant edge in playoff PPG, bolstering his "big game" image, more grit and presumably a tougher past. Whether that will be enough for him to be inducted is yet to be seen. If it is, that should really open the door for players like Hossa, Elias, Alfredsson and Roenick.

Perhaps, and i'm not a turgeon fan at all, but looking at the numbers, they were basically the same player.

I don't see either guy as a surefire hofer in my book, especially not a first ballot guy. Better players than Sundin have had to wait.

I may as well paste what I said in the other thread which was in response to pretty much the same question:

He does have a better case. To have watched both you'd have thought Sundin was the more dominant player, more able to carry a team and take control of a shift on his own. The numbers are somewhat similar but Turgeon was hurt a lot, put up far more of his points prior to the dead puck era and didn't age well. Sundin was a 2nd team all-star when he was 31 and 33 years old. Turgeon, not once. So I think when you look at the career numbers it is a little deceptive since Turgeon wasn't considered to be close to an elite player in the dead puck era. Both players were also the same age, and played in the same era.

And of course, consistency. Sundin had 17 straight years, minus the lockouts, of 72 or more points. Made even more impressive that most of it was in a lower scoring era. You knew what you would get with Sundin every year. With Turgeon he could be hurt, traded and of course he did nothing noteworthy after 32 years old. Let's not forget Team Sweden either. Maybe the HHOF still doesn't care and maybe that wasn't the reason he was inducted, but either way that resume of his cannot go unnoticed. And I realize Turgeon had tougher competition for Team Canada, but the guy was never even close to being considered in his career.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math

His adjusted totals are higher, if you factor in the lockout he's over 100 goals and 100 points above Turgeon. Turgeon has more playoff points, but similar PPG. Sundin has extras like being good in international play, captain and career records of O6 Canadian team, and considered by most a better two-way player than Turgeon.

Once Shanahan, Modano, and Recchi are inducted, then Turgeon will have the most adjusted points of any non-HOFer. If other players like Alfredsson get inducted, then that's really going to be a slight of Turgeon and others.

Perhaps HOF draws the line at players like Turgeon and Tkachuk, who didn't often get past the first round of the playoffs and didn't do much when they did. They may also exclude high peak players like Kariya, Naslund and LeClair on a similar basis (although Turgeon and Tkachuk has good peaks as well).

Fleury seems more in a category like Mogilny and Kovalev. Very good careers that probably could have been even better but for injuries and other issues. They have good (but not great) career totals, won a Cup, and had very good peaks. Fleury has a significant edge in playoff PPG, bolstering his "big game" image, more grit and presumably a tougher past. Whether that will be enough for him to be inducted is yet to be seen. If it is, that should really open the door for players like Hossa, Elias, Alfredsson and Roenick.

I think the snub - if you want to call it that - of Turgeon has a lot to do with the reputation he had in the postseason. No one ever thought Turgeon would beat you. I have long been a critic of his performances and how they dwindled as time wore on if he ever did get out of the first round. There were lots of tight series in his career and when you compare Fleury's stats in those crucial Game 6 and 7s there is a significant difference. Fleury helped his team win even if they lost. Turgeon so often disappeared when a goal or a point at the right time could have made a difference. Turgeon doesn't have many of those games where he was a difference maker, Fleury certainly does. Even in losses. For example, do you blame Zach Parise or Ilya Kovalchuk more the Devils losing in 2012? Despite the loss, does anyone think Parise is anything but a big game player?

And the others you mentioned all had something over Turgeon. Modano was the best forward on back to back Cup finalists. Some say he was robbed of a Conn Smythe. Dallas had a string of strong playoff runs and their roots start with Modano. Recchi is much of the same way. Yes he did have the benefit of being a supporting member on some great teams, but even in the big games, Recchi didn't disappear. We saw that as recent as his final playoff in 2011. Alfredsson was very much like Turgeon up until 2007 and if anything is probably closer to him in the postseason than Recchi or Modano, for sure.

And again, at first glance, the stats don't look too bad for Alfredsson pre-2007. They aren't great, but they aren't Keith Primeau-style either. He just had a bad knack of not being there on some great teams. Then 2007 came along and his perception changed. But in reality, he really only has that one season. However, it was a Smythe caliber run and that's still something Turgeon never did. Throw in a much better all around game for Alfie and the fact that he was at least on the same page offensively compared to his peers as Turgeon and I think the answer is obvious who belongs in the HHOF first.

I disagree with the last ones too. Fleury was a guy you wanted on your team over Kovalev or Mogilny. Basically Kovalev stuck around so long that he fit into the category of "good but not great scorer who played for close to 20 years who ought to have 1,000 points". He frustrated Rangers fans constantly. Always wondering when he would bust out. He had that one elite year in Pittsburgh and then one in Montreal, but just like Mogilny he was wildly inconsistent. You would put both of those guys among the most talented players to ever play............but you have an asterisk with them. They left you wanting more. Fleury poured his entire soul into a game. Every night. And there is little doubt who you wanted on your team more in the 1990s. Mogilny and Kovalev were either hot or cold, and sometimes very cold. Not what I expect in a HHOFer.

I think the snub - if you want to call it that - of Turgeon has a lot to do with the reputation he had in the postseason. No one ever thought Turgeon would beat you. I have long been a critic of his performances and how they dwindled as time wore on if he ever did get out of the first round. There were lots of tight series in his career and when you compare Fleury's stats in those crucial Game 6 and 7s there is a significant difference. Fleury helped his team win even if they lost. Turgeon so often disappeared when a goal or a point at the right time could have made a difference. Turgeon doesn't have many of those games where he was a difference maker, Fleury certainly does. Even in losses. For example, do you blame Zach Parise or Ilya Kovalchuk more the Devils losing in 2012? Despite the loss, does anyone think Parise is anything but a big game player?

I was defending Sundin vs. Turgeon, so we are in agreement.

I wouldn't really blame anyone on the Devils for not winning the Cup, I thought they overachieved. I'm not sure what Parise and Kovalchuk have to do with this. Kovy is probably going to the HOF, despite being the antithesis of a big game player for most of his career. Parise has played well in some big games, but I wouldn't put him on the level of someone like Fleury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil

And the others you mentioned all had something over Turgeon. Modano was the best forward on back to back Cup finalists. Some say he was robbed of a Conn Smythe. Dallas had a string of strong playoff runs and their roots start with Modano. Recchi is much of the same way. Yes he did have the benefit of being a supporting member on some great teams, but even in the big games, Recchi didn't disappear. We saw that as recent as his final playoff in 2011. Alfredsson was very much like Turgeon up until 2007 and if anything is probably closer to him in the postseason than Recchi or Modano, for sure.

I brought up Modano and Recchi only because they are ahead of Turgeon in adjusted points. Let's face it, the HOF is unlikely to induct anyone in the near future who would be more of a slight than some of those forwards already inducted. I can see why Turgeon isn't in, perhaps less so why others are. The point was that Turgeon will be the at the very top in adjusted points among non-HOFers, that's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil

And again, at first glance, the stats don't look too bad for Alfredsson pre-2007. They aren't great, but they aren't Keith Primeau-style either. He just had a bad knack of not being there on some great teams. Then 2007 came along and his perception changed. But in reality, he really only has that one season. However, it was a Smythe caliber run and that's still something Turgeon never did. Throw in a much better all around game for Alfie and the fact that he was at least on the same page offensively compared to his peers as Turgeon and I think the answer is obvious who belongs in the HHOF first.

I just have a feeling Alfredsson will make it, but that if he played for a handful of teams instead of being captain of a Canadian franchise for his whole career, then he likely wouldn't. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the HOF, only that his case is not much stronger than that of, say, Elias or Hossa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil

I disagree with the last ones too. Fleury was a guy you wanted on your team over Kovalev or Mogilny. Basically Kovalev stuck around so long that he fit into the category of "good but not great scorer who played for close to 20 years who ought to have 1,000 points". He frustrated Rangers fans constantly. Always wondering when he would bust out. He had that one elite year in Pittsburgh and then one in Montreal, but just like Mogilny he was wildly inconsistent. You would put both of those guys among the most talented players to ever play............but you have an asterisk with them. They left you wanting more. Fleury poured his entire soul into a game. Every night. And there is little doubt who you wanted on your team more in the 1990s. Mogilny and Kovalev were either hot or cold, and sometimes very cold. Not what I expect in a HHOFer.

I think all 3 could have had significantly better careers, yet still had very good peak seasons. Fleury only got past the first round in his rookie season and ten years later when he was traded to Colorado near the end of the season. Fleury was more consistent in the first round, but Kovalev had the best run in '94. I just don't think Fleury's argument is overwhelming, if it rests in large part on the playoffs, and his biggest roles in series victories were:

- 2 assists in game 4 of the WCF to put Calgary up 3-1
- helping Colorado beat the below-.500 Sharks in the first round

I just wonder how much is perception and how much his reality. Heck, Turgeon outscored Fleury .67 ppg to .48 after the first round, and he got out of the first round more often. Fleury's only times out of the first round were on a Cup-winning team and on perennial Cup-contender Colorado. If Dionne is criticized and penalized for not leading his team farther, how is Fleury a surefire HOFer based on his playoffs? Is it possible that Fleury would have faded after the first round, much like he did with a HOF center in '99?

I wouldn't really blame anyone on the Devils for not winning the Cup, I thought they overachieved. I'm not sure what Parise and Kovalchuk have to do with this. Kovy is probably going to the HOF, despite being the antithesis of a big game player for most of his career. Parise has played well in some big games, but I wouldn't put him on the level of someone like Fleury.

Just that no one ever really faults Parise for a loss. No, he isn't at Fleury's level yet, but its just that he always is in the mix and gives it his all from what we've seen from him so far.

Quote:

I brought up Modano and Recchi only because they are ahead of Turgeon in adjusted points. Let's face it, the HOF is unlikely to induct anyone in the near future who would be more of a slight than some of those forwards already inducted. I can see why Turgeon isn't in, perhaps less so why others are. The point was that Turgeon will be the at the very top in adjusted points among non-HOFers, that's all.

He will. Another reason why I think stats aren't something we should solely rely upon.

Quote:

I just have a feeling Alfredsson will make it, but that if he played for a handful of teams instead of being captain of a Canadian franchise for his whole career, then he likely wouldn't. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the HOF, only that his case is not much stronger than that of, say, Elias or Hossa.

It isn't, he is in that "no man's land" area. In other words without the 2007 playoffs we might not be talking about him, but with another couple strong playoff showings, he might be considered close to a lock. He's really on the fence.

Quote:

I think all 3 could have had significantly better careers, yet still had very good peak seasons. Fleury only got past the first round in his rookie season and ten years later when he was traded to Colorado near the end of the season. Fleury was more consistent in the first round, but Kovalev had the best run in '94. I just don't think Fleury's argument is overwhelming, if it rests in large part on the playoffs, and his biggest roles in series victories were:

- 2 assists in game 4 of the WCF to put Calgary up 3-1
- helping Colorado beat the below-.500 Sharks in the first round

I just wonder how much is perception and how much his reality. Heck, Turgeon outscored Fleury .67 ppg to .48 after the first round, and he got out of the first round more often. Fleury's only times out of the first round were on a Cup-winning team and on perennial Cup-contender Colorado. If Dionne is criticized and penalized for not leading his team farther, how is Fleury a surefire HOFer based on his playoffs? Is it possible that Fleury would have faded after the first round, much like he did with a HOF center in '99?

I don't think he would have been. For starters, Fleury is not Marcel Dionne skill-wise. Secondly, he did better in the postseason than Dionne. Lastly, he only has two instances where he made it out of the first round, once winning the Cup. The first time was a rookie and the other time was in 1999 where I will admit he could have produced better in the later rounds. That was a 7 game series against Dallas, a close series, and a goal or two would have changed the outcomes.

But with Turgeon you have lots of those moments. You can look and say that his numbers are alright at first glance, even out of the first round, but check out the crucial games.

1990 - 0 points in final 6th game
1991 - 0 points in last two games of series
1993 - believe it or not, the year he was hurt he had 5 points in 4 games of the last series
1994 - 1 assist in a sweep
1996 - Ironically had all 6 points in the 4 losses. Did his part
1997 - 0 points last three games of first round series
1998 - 0 points last 2 games of playoffs, 1 point last 5 games vs. Detroit
1999 - Did alright in the closing games, not a bad postseason
2000 - 0 points in Game 7. 7 assists for whole series loss
2001 - 0 points in elimination game, but overall a good postseason

There are too many times when Turgeon didn't show up and take the bull by the horns. The stats might show he was close to a point per game in the postseason, but he earned the "Tin Man" nickname for a reason early on. Too many times he didn't show up.

Mogilny was much of the same way, only worse. Wasn't a big factor in 2000, it wasn't a contract year. Won a Cup that year though. In 2001 they made it back to the final, but he had 3 points in 7 games and 4 points overall in the final 12 postseason games. This happened all too often with him.

Kovalev performed better in the postseason than Mogilny did. He just never was able to string any elite seasons together. You also didn't know what to expect from him. Was he going to dive on the ice and roll around letting on he was hurt? Or was he going to use his talents to win a game? You never knew with him - ever.

With Fleury you knew what he would bring to the table. He was excellent, even in elimination games where they lost. That's a guy that lost, but exceeded his part in a losing cause. I think knowing that he could play in a pressure game internationally that Fleury would have been just fine had his team's gotten out of the first round more often. Even if he wouldn't have been scoring points, you know he'd still be contributing in other ways. Did anyone ever see Mogilny, Turgeon or Kovalev sacrifice their body to block a shot?

Interesting site I found called http://notinhalloffame.com/hockey which ranks Fleury 11th in the players who should be in the hall. It's actually 9 if you take out Cherry/Burns and 7th if you also take out Chelios and Niedermayer who aren't yet eligible. They ranked Fleury and Mogilny 11-12 and Andrechyuk 10 but I think Andrechyuk is behind the other two because he never seemed as elite though a moot point since all of them should be in there under better criteria.

Imo, 1000+ pts or 800+ games around or above a ppg since the 90s should equal automatic hall of fame. I also find it funny that people argue about a diluted pool, BS because these guys are competing against an increasing # of Americans and also Europeans while the original six were basically just Canadians. Kids nowadays even have to compete more in junior just to get drafted in a high enough spot where they'll get a good look by an NHL club.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil

But with Turgeon you have lots of those moments. You can look and say that his numbers are alright at first glance, even out of the first round, but check out the crucial games.

1990 - 0 points in final 6th game
1991 - 0 points in last two games of series
1993 - believe it or not, the year he was hurt he had 5 points in 4 games of the last series
1994 - 1 assist in a sweep
1996 - Ironically had all 6 points in the 4 losses. Did his part
1997 - 0 points last three games of first round series
1998 - 0 points last 2 games of playoffs, 1 point last 5 games vs. Detroit
1999 - Did alright in the closing games, not a bad postseason
2000 - 0 points in Game 7. 7 assists for whole series loss
2001 - 0 points in elimination game, but overall a good postseason

There are too many times when Turgeon didn't show up and take the bull by the horns. The stats might show he was close to a point per game in the postseason, but he earned the "Tin Man" nickname for a reason early on. Too many times he didn't show up....
.
.
.
.
Did anyone ever see Mogilny, Turgeon or Kovalev sacrifice their body to block a shot?

I find this to be a terrible argument. Look at the guy's accomplishments not what he didn't accomplish or the fact that he wasn't clutch. We didn't even have film before 1952, how do you know that some of the other guys in there were any good defensively or blocked shots or how important the distribution of their goals was? It's the hall of fame not the hall of who was the most clutch or effective, Fleury, Kovalev, and Mogilny and earlier Turgeon were all elite famous players in their era and it is the "hall of fame" so why not have them in. It's time to start acknowledging the fact that the league has more and more stars nowadays who deserve a spot and that has nothing to do with "dilution of talent."

It's the hall of fame not the hall of who was the most clutch or effective, Fleury, Kovalev, and Mogilny and earlier Turgeon were all elite famous players in their era and it is the "hall of fame" so why not have them in. It's time to start acknowledging the fact that the league has more and more stars nowadays who deserve a spot and that has nothing to do with "dilution of talent."

A hall of fame is supposed to be exclusive. Not everyone can make it. And those four are hardly elite famous players of their era. Kovalev is a definite no. Turgeon is more of a compiler but maybe Im underrating him. Mogilny is borderline. His career is really underwhelming outside of 93 and 96. Fleury is probably the most deserving but Im not really sold on him yet.